Category talk:Spacecraft classifications
Creation :From MA:CS. Category:Starship classifications based on Starship classification. By themselves they are too broad to be included in Category:Starship classes because they themselves include several classes of starship. This would most likely be a supercategory for starship classes. --Alan del Beccio 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) * Support: I think this is a great idea given the current categorization structure of the Starship classes. I know that page fails to cite some of its sources (for the background at least), but all of the classifications given appear to be genuine, and it wouldn't be a problem if one or two turned out not to be.--Tim Thomason 10:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Forum:Starships and manned spacecraft Ares IV and Apollo 11 are linked to starship and in a category called Category:Earth starships, but they are definitely not starships. Also, Orbital 1 is not a starship so I'm not sure what cat it should have. I'm just complaining, I dont have a suggestion to fix it at the moment. --Bp 02:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :Very good point. Maybe a category like Category:Sublight ships would fit? Obviously would need to go through the whole community discussion thing first. As a side note, is there a canon source for our current definition of starship? If not, what is the grounds for how it currently reads? I am not proposing changing it, but that might be another solution to the problem. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Aside from the implied definition that star'ships travel between stars, it was very clear in dialogue that a "starship" was something very special and powerful. The category should be "Manned spacecraft" because even "sublight ships" is an exaggeration of what these spacecraft do. --Bp 03:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :All of that sounds good to me. I was thinking the same thing on "starship" in terms of definition, but wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one, or something like that. As another note, there are many more ships with category problems like this. For example, Bajoran interceptor, which is categorized as "Bajoran starship classes". Obviously it too would not qualify as a starship. Worse yet is the sub-impulse Bajoran raider, in the same category. I'd say that with the exception of weapons, this is probably closer to the Ares IV than it is to a starship. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Also, no I notice the Category:Starship classifications which includes ships that are not starhips. The category even has the article Starship included in it. Maybe this should be changed to Spacecraft classifications. --Bp 08:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ...And also, Enterprise (OV-101) is not a starship. --Bp 07:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Spacecraft categories :...moved from Memory Alpha:Category suggestions.'' There are many problems with the way spacecraft are catogorized. Many spacecraft that do not qualify as starships, like Apollo 11 and Enterprise (OV-101), are in Category:Starships and linked to Starship. Also, Category:Starships is a sub-cat of Category:Starship classifications, which just seems stupid. Category:Starship classifications itself contains unqualified members. Also, the same problem as the lists of individuals, categories like Klingon starships are not linked to anything else Klingon. That is, however, a problem outside the scope of the changes I am proposing. I propose that the spacecraft categories be restructured like so: * Category:Technology? ** Category:Spacecraft *** Category:Probes **** Voyager 6, Nomad, Friendship 1, MIDAS array,... *** Category:Manned Crewed spacecraft **** Ares IV, Orbital 1, Enterprise (OV-101),... **** Category:Starships **** Category:Shuttles (although many shuttles basically qualify as starships) **** Category:Space stations Comments? --Bp 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) :This is a big problem. In addition to the examples that Bp pointed out, there are also a number of sublight ships that have been lumped into other "starship" categories. For example, the Bajoran interceptor is in Category:Bajoran starship classes, which makes no sense, as it is not a starship. Our entire system for categorizing space vehicles of all kinds is in need of serious work. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ::Our category tree is really only now getting hammered out, so with regards of the starship classification category, where it is is really just a placeholder until we can get our ducks in a row. With that said, we had this discussion some time ago, regarding the SS Botany Bay, which is apparently something you've both overlooked, considering the fact that it is on the discussion page for the category in question. There, this site, and Cid too, has agreed that a starship is defined as any ship capable of space travel. Although my argument at the time originally paralleled yours, the fact remains, this sites definition of a starship remains the same: "a type of vehicle that is capable of supporting a crew traveling over interstellar distances." Which I've come to understand as acceptable. Now regardless if it is warp-capable or not, and without limitations on the distance of how "capable of..traveling over interstellar distances" it is, '''if it can travel in space, whether faster or slower than the speed of light, it is still a starship. I would however, like to add, that I would not be opposed to a subcategory of starships for a "sublight starships" category, but I don't like the "manned spacecraft" qualifier riff raff. --Alan del Beccio 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) There is nothing "interstellar" about Ares IV, Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101). Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101) can't even travel to another planet, let alone another star system. Also, probes do not fit into starships, thats why they are classified in spacecraft in the proposal. I read the talk page you mentioned, and there was no real conclusion. Also, you didn't really address the problem of Starship being a Starship classification. --Bp 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks for linking that past discussion, Alan. However, I'd like to point out that the definition on Starship itself has changed since then, from "most are FTL" to "are FTL". At the moment, I can't really tell if this is because some evidence has been brought up in the past 18 months to contradict the former definition, or if someone just felt like changing that - however, the definition should be consistent between this page and its use in a category. Also, Bp is correct, any vessel that isn't even "interstellar" (FTL or not) shouldn't be on that list according to the current definition. Morale of this story: Find a consistent definition of "starship" first, and then change categorization accordingly. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::Partial oppose: we're currently having a discussion on IRC (Bp and me), and we obviously disagree on what exactly "craft" means. I think that in the term "spacecraft", "craft" refers to "boat, ship" specifically, whereas Bp thinks that it's rather the definition of "being crafted" that applies here. Using his POV, "space station" would be a valid sub of "spacecraft" (but so would many other things that are crafted and in space), using my POV, it obviously wouldn't and should be a sub of "Technology" instead, just as it is at the moment. So, for the moment, I'm opposing the proposed "Space station" categorization. Help us out, here... ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC) "Craft" refers to a skill. Writing is a craft, painting is a craft. An aircraft, or watercraft is called that becuase it was skillfully designed to operate in the air or on the water. A space station is a spacecraft in the same way. The word "spacecraft" by itself does not imply that the object moves, only that it was designed for operation in space. Probes, Ships, Stations all fall into that category. --Bp 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :What is Bp on about? Craft refers to boat or ship, I don't know what has him thinking otherwise. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::To clarifiy, "craft" can refer to both, "a skill" and "boat, ship (also plural)", depending on context - see, for example this dictionary.com page. Words can have more than one meaning, obviously... it's just the question which one applies in this context, and I still believe it is the definition of a craft being "a ship or other vessel (#5)". -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) But the ship or vessel was originally called a craft because of it's skilled design and construction, not it's movement. They are two meanings, but the second meaning is derived from the first. The word craft used in aircraft, watercraft, spacecraft does not mean movement, only design and construction for the specific purpose of air or water or space operation. That the operation of a ship, one type of craft, requires movement does not mean that all *craft NEED to move. --Bp 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :I decided to look in a dictionary, and I think you are wrong Bp: :*''a vehicle or device designed for travel or operation outside the earth's atmosphere'' :Deep Space 9 was not designed for travel. Spacedock does not travel. ISS does not travel. Space Stations do not travel any more than your local gas station travels. They are something you go to, not something that you use to go around in. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) "A vehicle or device designed for travel or operation". Your dictionary definition already agrees with me. A space station is designed for operation outside the Earth's atmosphere. --Bp 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :To quote a particularly eloquente Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe, "NUTS!" --OuroborosCobra talk 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ---- :::For the record: I still don't like "spacecraft" itself, but apparently it is used for stations. I haven't said anything about "manned" spacecraft (that was Alan), but now that I was made aware of it I agree, it sounds stupid. "Crewed" isn't better, though - among other things, because it would also include the other subcategories "starships", "shuttles" and "space stations". Just leave that category out completely (yes, that's a definitive oppose) and sort all "other" items to the main category. More later, after I had some sleep... :) -- Cid Highwind 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :: I think this discussion would be better moved/held at talk:Starship because what seems clear here is that we have yet to be able to define our "craft". --Alan del Beccio 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :: Archived pending further discussion. --Alan 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Starship vs. Space space vs. Shuttle Having found another reference the other day, I thought I would revisit this again, I thought I would bring it up as it was never resolved in the first place. ;When a spacecraft is not a starship: * "He commands not just a spaceship, Proconsul, but a starship. A very special vessel and crew. I tried for such a command." ( ) * "Are we going to fly in your ship?" / "He said it was a shuttle, not a ship." ( ) * "Leader, there is another Federation ship closing. A starship!" ( ) ;It's all in the configuration: * "I have it on the sensors, Captain. By configuration -- a starship. stopped in space. She appears to be drifting." ( ) ;Or the power I use: * "The thing that confused me was the power utilization curve. It made them seem more powerful than a starship or anything known to us. That ship was constructed for a suicide mission. Since they never intended to return to their home base, they could use 100% power on their attacks." ( ) ;It's what I do: * "Starships do not transport cargo." / "In times of emergency, they do anything, and believe me, botanical plague is an emergency." ( ) ;It's all in the power: * "Well, how the devil am I supposed to know this is a starship, Captain? A strange ship comes alongside. Naturally I tried to evade you. Starship captain, you exceeded your authority when you drove me and mine into a shower of asteroids." ( ) * "Mr. Mudd, you're charged with galaxy travel without a flight plan, without an identification beam, and failure to answer a starship's signal, thus a menace to navigation." * "''You'll need medical help, cargo runs, starship protection." * There are various other similar references about 'misusing a starship's authority' in . While it is clear that in TOS a "starship" was roughly equal to "Starfleet ship", it seems that for the most part that changes by the time of TNG, with the odd exception of the Season 2 Ferengi reference. What is not clear is how exactly to redefine it from that point; as it might be obvious, to most, that if something is pre-warp, or sub-warp spacecraft then it is not a "star"-ship, then what is it? And what of shuttles? Other terms to consider include "spaceship", "spacecraft", "orbital spacecraft", "early spacecraft", "space capsule", "space shuttle", "interstellar spacecraft", "space vehicle", "warp ship", "rocket" and so on... And for the record: * A "spaceship" (1894) is 'a vehicle used for space travel' * A "craft" is 'a boat esp. of small size'/'aircraft'/'spacecraft' ** A "spacecraft" (1930) is 'a vehicle or device designed for travel or operation outside of earth's atmosphere' * A "starship" (1934) is 'a spacecraft designed for interstellar travel' * A "space shuttle" (1969) is 'a reusable spacecraft designed to transport people and cargo between earth and space' So from this, you can ascertain that a spacecraft is not a starship, but a starship is a spacecraft. So perhaps the resolution to this is to make "starships" a subcategory of "spacecraft". --Alan 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : And what of shuttles? Shuttles arent starships as stated by Nog in "Ive heared of cadets getting command over a runabout or a shuttle, but not a starship." : Also, I believe Pike called the Enterprise a "space vehicle" in , another (canon) term for "spacecraft". --Maxwell Fawkes 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Shuttles have been previously described as auxiliary space vessels, but may also qualify as a "space vehicle", a term I mentioned above, and looks to be a "catch all" term for interstellar craft. References were (rf D7 class), (rf any ship that visited Argelius) (rf unidentified craft, later found to be Class F shuttlecraft), and (rf vehicle classification index, essentially). --Alan 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Rename Starship claffifications is a wrong description for this category in my opinion. An escape pod or a shuttle is per definition not a starship. Also runabouts arent starships. Nog says in something like "Ive heared that cadets got command over a shuttlecraft or a runabout, but not a starship." Rename the category to space vessel (aka space vehicle) types or something with the subcategories "starships" and "auxiliary vessels". --Maxwell Fawkes 21:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) : It would probably be best to start this at talk:Starship classification, since this discussion is an offshoot of what is apparently a larger problem. --Alan 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ::Not sure where Alan moved this from, but the name is a problem, since OV should be categorized here, even though it's not a "starship" classification. - 03:50, April 21, 2016 (UTC)